No, Mr. Lundby,
I did in fact answer you below. The fact that you still attempt to ignore my post demonstrates that you are not interested in real debate on the issues. For your information, Empire's president did review a draft press release four days before the Feb. 28 PR, but it was apparently further revised and then posted. So that equals a problem between Empire and ECNC's subsidiary. Seems the PR was okay, except some of the words which Mr. a@P in apparently a taped interview with the Empire guy right after Mr. A@P arrived on the scene said they did not have a "strategic alliance"....again a matter of interpretation. It is in no manner proven fraud. A jury will get jury instructions on the use of plain English right out of the dictionary for them to deliberate on these very same words you torture. Here's my response again...in case you lost it...
We already went over the dictionary definition of "alliance" and how a "Letter of Intent for Negotiation and Information Exchange" can in fact apply. My own Webster's defines "alliance" as "a bond or connection between families,states, parties,or individuals...an association to further the common interests of the members..." Certainly, forming an alliance to pursue business interests, exchange information and as the contract itself says, the parties: "propose
entering into an agreement concerning the Beta testing for 'same as cash' ATM transactions via internet brokerage accounts..." I mean the doggone written document is signed and is in existence. It calls for an exchange of information and doing certain tasks "to further the common interests of the members (ECNC's subsidiary and Empire). Whether this "alliance" with Empire was "strategic" or not depends on who you talk to. My Webster's defines "strategic" as "necessary to or important in the initiation, conduct or completion of a strategic plan...of great importance within an integrated whole or to a planned effect..." Clearly, this was "strategic" for ECNC's business plan to implement its business. While it may not have been for Empire, that does not mean it was not for ECNC. That is clearly how I read the PR. This game going on here is all a matter of semantics for the SEC to justify its halt when it was sicked on
ECNC by Anthony@Pacific and his minions who follow him at SI and his professional short site anthonypacific.com.
Further, the Pilot Island contract is online. It clearly calls for Pilot Island, who "has certain technical skills available with handheld computer technology and personal digital assistance" to joint venture with ECNC, who "has a patent for handheld computing devices that transmit debit
card information." The object of this written Joint Venture Agreement is to "create a 'Client software/hardware solution' that will facilitate a secure transaction interface and communications betwen handheld computing devices and secure transaction servers. The net result to be to provide same as cash transactions over virtual private networks." The product is to be called "PocketPay." In Paragraph 2.0 "PIP's Representations," it states very clearly: [2.03]"PIP (Pilot Island) will provide the relationship with the industry leader with PDA's 3COM and their PALM division." [2.04] "PIP will provide and oversee the distribution of the client PQA (Palm Query Application) through industry alliances." Furthermore, Pilot Island ahs
in the past worked with Palm code and had an existing relationship with them. In response to the issue of a "license agreement" with Palm directly, this JOINT VENTURE did provide the "WWW.PALM.NET WEB CLIPPING APPLICATION UPLOADING AGREEMENT AND RIGHTS NOTICE" to which we understand Pilot did click "I ACCEPT" as one of the developers who upon signing this agreement can utilize Palm code free, subject to many conditions of course. But interestingly enough, the agreement itself says that Plam will not reveal the information of such developers and those who sign the WEb Clipping Application. I think we are over that hurdle now.
So, the point again, is that this is all about one's interpretation of wording in a PR. The actual contractual pieces to the puzzle are in fact in existence. It simply takes common sense to put it together. Don't sell yourselves short people (no pun intended)! The final arbiter of this dispute will very likely be a jury of people just like you. Use your common sense. What does this whole thing tell you? Do these agreements exist? Can the agreements be read the way the PR reports? The SEC has to prove to a jury by clear and convincing evidence that these PR were misrepresentation or fraud. I simply do not see it.
But I need to see all the PR that could be in dispute. Does anyone have the more onerous ones in question. Verbatim. Online, without the fluff? We need to see what exactly the issues are before we analyze these contracts in light of the truth and the agenda of the shorts to bring this company to its knees.
Still long and strong and not surrendering one single dime. Go ECNC!!!
[By the way, did you actually pay $600 per month to join anthonypacific.com?] |
